User talk:MarcoTolo

MarcoTolo's talk page

When leaving a message, please consider the following:

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

So I can follow the conversation, please add new entries to the bottom of this page.
Please sign and date your entries by inserting '''-- ~~~~''' at the end of your post.
If I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond on your talk page in order to keep the discussion in one place.
I will reply on this page to messages left here unless you request otherwise.

Nested tables

Thanks! There's one more thing to go, and I think it's do-able. The nested tables are centered vertically in their cells. So if they are of different heights, their tops don't line up. I think I saw something somewhere about how to fix this, but I don't remember where. I'm still not an expert at WP tables, but I'm learnin'. Lou Sander 17:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it worked for you. To force for alignment, you can use the valign="top" parameter (see Help:Table#Vertical alignment for details). -- MarcoTolo 23:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It took some experimenting with the placement of the valign="top", but it's working perfectly now. Sample with embedded comments is HERE. Thanks again for your help. Lou Sander 02:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning new users

I noticed you gave a 3rd-level warning ("Please stop") to a user after their first edit. Sometimes this is justified, but the content of the edit was not particularly unusual for newbie editors, and we should try not to bite the newcomers. Next time this happens, please give a first or second level warning instead. Thanks for your good work. Yechiel Man 04:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean my warning to Shottah, I used a level 3 warning because the posts were a continuation of edits by 38.114.67.187 (diff). I actually repeated the L3 warning in case the timestamps were too close to the user registration. -- MarcoTolo 04:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking editing from IP address

Hi There

I'm sysadmin at a school and we are often warned and occasionally blocked due to vandalism from our IP address - User_talk:203.56.245.7 After some discussion here we feel the best approach is to block anonymous editing from our IP address, and since you are the most recent person to warn us on our talk page I'm guessing you can point me in the right direction to arrange this - we don't want to block editing outright at our end, as some students may have useful input, but we'd like them to go through their own logins to do this so that foolishness doesn't impact on others. Any idea what the process is? Thanks in advance - Jase 02:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the MediaWiki software can be configured to only block anon edits from a given IP, but I don't know what the Wikipedia policy is in that case. I've asked a Friendly Neighborhood Admin for their take on the situation and I'll let you know as soon as I hear back from them. -- MarcoTolo 18:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses can change so an indef block is unwise, so I'd recommend getting an official e-mail from this person, so you can confirm they are who they say they are, and then block for 1 year. The block can be renewed as necessary. People with accounts will still be able to edit. TimVickers 18:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim. I'll follow-up with Jase and get back to you. -- MarcoTolo 19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jase, could you send me an email from you school account with this request so we can verify your identity? (Use the "Email this user" link from the Wikipedia toolbox - upper left side of your screen.) Thanks much. -- MarcoTolo 19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt response, I'll send that email now :) - Jase 23:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 1 year. TimVickers 00:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - that was fast. Thanks much. -- MarcoTolo 00:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, the no account creation block should be OK, I'll get back to you otherwise --

Jase 00:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Aminoacyl-tRNA

Hey, I saw you tidied up the reference I made at Aminoacyl-tRNA. Is there a chance you could tell me how to do that kind of trick? Sakkura 00:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. If you mean how to use the {{cite}} templates, checkout the Wikipedia help page. If, instead, you're asking about filling-out the template, one can: a) do it by hand; b) use a tool like OttoBib which fills-in templates using ISBN data; or c) generate the template with OttoBib, then edit as needed (what I did in that case). Let me know if you want more (or different) info about reference citing. -- MarcoTolo 23:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I have figured it out now :) Sakkura 11:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of polio survivors

Thanks for the barnstar! I've made some comments at User talk:DO11.10#List of polio survivors that you might want to read. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 12:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you are interesting on doing some work on the list? See my talk page. Let me know if your are interested, no pressure. Colin°^Talk 22:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer. See the article's talk and my own talk page for details and some tips. Colin°^Talk 21:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've started on the list already. Great. Could you look out for polio-related info to add too. I feel that helps make the list more informative to read on its own. I've tried to locate, for each person, the age they caught polio (or the year - I don't like subtracting years to get an age, since it isn't accurate), how the disease affected them both short-term and long-term, and whether it altered their career. Feel free to dip in and out as the mood and time permit. It is too big a list to tackle in a hurry. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 21:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi Marco. I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. It was closed at surprising 75/0/0, so I'm an admin now. MaxSem 22:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EL issue

Hi Marco,

I noticed this edit to Clostridium tetani, and a similar one a few days ago on Chlamydia. Noticing a pattern here, I took a look at the contributions of the user who edited both pages (NebuchadnezzarN (talk · contribs) and found an evolving pattern. This user has added similar links to over 200 pages. I feel that there are a couple of problems here:

The links he is adding are, in my opinion, are highly technical and would provide virtually no information for the casual user, or really to anyone but the most specialized scientists.
He is adding a section called "Genomics" (or whatnot) with no content other than the links he is adding, even in articles with established EL sections.
The proliferation of the links is also disturbing, and feels a bit like a linkspam/repository issue.

So the reason I am telling you this is that you seem to have a lot of experience in dealing with EL problems. Could you take a look? Let me know what you think and what I should do about it?--DO11.10 21:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the additions a few days ago, but hadn't realized the number of entries until now - looks like around 200 articles or so. When I originally noticed the links, they were being added to the EL section and, after looking at the site, I had a similar reaction: probably too technical for Wikipedia, but no huge red flags. Now that the edits have shifted to adding a new section and embedding "outbound" links, I'm less comfortable with the mass additions. My suggestion would be that you start with a gentle "So, you've been adding a lot of links lately that may not be in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Please stop adding until we can talk about it." and see what the response from the user is. Certainly the blanket addition of a new, marginally populated section is less than useful.... On the other hand, if the links are being added in good faith, I'd hate to lose an editor simply because we didn't happen to catch their misguided work soon enough. If, on the the third hand, you get the sense that this is ~~simple~~ complex linkspam, a smackdown may be appropriate.

People can get very touchy about "their" links - especially when they are not directly connected to a given site, but are simply excited about a site they've "discovered" (a particular problem with disease/medical condition sites). I've found it best to stick with the "We're an encyclopedia and the link doesn't meet our needs". I hope some of the above is helpful - let me know what happens, eh? -- MarcoTolo 22:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, I have given it a shot. I'll wait to see what happens.--DO11.10 20:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolved problems in biology nominated for deletion

The article unsolved problems in biology has also been nominated for deletion. Your opinion is welcomed at the discussion under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in biology (2nd nomination). Cacycle 02:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny - the "new message indicator" just came up as I posted my two-cents worth at the AfD..... Thanks for the thought. -- MarcoTolo 03:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not fix the bots

having editable sections is convenient. And what good are "bots" for except to keep a tally of something that shouldn't be a vote? --Random832 00:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience is a Good Thing - I'd suggest talking to the bot owner (Tangotango runs Tangobot) about the possibility of a code change. -- MarcoTolo 20:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution FAC

Thanks for the copy-edit, as you are an experienced copy-editor, could I ask you to give some feedback on how well the article in general meets criterion 1a at the FAC nomination page? Thanks, if you have time. TimVickers 23:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the prose quality in Evolution is, in my opinion, quite good. There is, of course, some variability, but overall the tone and semantic content are good. There are a few places where the text "fades" a little or where the phrasing seems a bit off ("...show these hard to fake, sexually selected traits"), but I personally think the prose is basically FA-quality now. -- MarcoTolo 23:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MTC External Links

Hi. I note that you removed external links to two independent diaries concerning personal experiences with medullary thyroid cancer. I won't argue if you wish to delete them, as a narrow interpretation of the rules regarding such links could be invoked; a broader interpretation would support the opposite.

However, I question the wisdom of deleting the information.

The MTC article is about a very rare disease whose technical aspects the article rightly addresses. Having authored the section on MTC prognosis indicators, I would agree that content in the main text needs to be technical.

However, for those who actually face this disease, well-written diaries (such as the two you deleted), are clearly of great value; there are quite a few poorly written ones on the internet or various support sites.

Simple empathy with those who actually must endure the disease and its treatment suggests you restore the links somewhere, perhaps in the See Also. Or else be consistent and remove the See Also Chernobyl link.

Regards, -- Jwc012 17:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sites you listed do, I think, have considerable merit - just not as an integral part of an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia has often recognized the value of these types of sites by linking to the Open Directory Project, a free catalog of web resources which is also run by a volunteer editorial staff. The Thyroid cancer article has an ODP link to http://dmoz.org//Health/Conditions_and_Diseases/Cancer/Endocrine/Thyroid/; I would strongly encourage you to submit your links to ODP in this category so that individuals who wish to find the two diaries can do so easily. -- MarcoTolo 21:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andretti curse

I have added new sources directly covering this topic at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andretti Curse. I invite you to review them and consider whether they might change your opinion on deleting the article. Barno 00:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antibody

Hi there! Wow...thanks for fixing that table on the antibody page. I tried in vain, many a time, to do something with that but could just never figure it out....h'mmmm "prettytable" huh!! Much appreciated...Ciar 22:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. I ran across the "prettytable" class a few months ago - somehow it manages to capture the "look-and-feel" of scientific data tables particularly well. -- MarcoTolo 22:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always forget about that, good thing you are here to keep my tables looking pretty. I put the image in the table, I thought it was nice to have it right there with the table. I hope you approve, feel free to help out as much, or as little as you would like. BTW, per our conversation about External links above, my third hand's sixth finger is starting to itch...--DO11.10 23:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do like the "antibody complexes" image added to the table, though I find the roughly full-width table format a little distracting. Let me see if I can come-up with an option acceptable even to Inigo Montoya.... -- MarcoTolo 00:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I came up with another version - though its still not "perfect" IMHO. I'm not really attached to it, so if you liked the previous version better, feel free to revert. -- MarcoTolo 00:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PDFlink

Hey there. Don't you prefer

<ref>Silverstein AM (2004). {{PDFlink|[http://users.path.ox.ac.uk/~seminars/halelibrary/Paper%2018.pdf "Labeled antigens and antibodies: the evolution of magic markers and magic bullets"]|135 [[Kibibyte|KiB]]}}. ''Nat. Immunol.'' '''5''' (12): 1211–7. {{DOI|10.1038/ni1140}}. PMID 15549122.</ref>,

which gives

Silverstein AM (2004). Template:PDFlink. Nat. Immunol. 5 (12): 1211–7. doi:10.1038/ni1140. PMID 15549122.

Just a thought :) I'm asking since I don't know whether this was ec or revert. Very nice work on the article by the way—I always regret messing with articles when they're being actively edited :) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An EC. I'm always torn in these cases because, while I do prefer the formatting of your example, I think that using {{cite}} fields allows for the (eventual) possibility of working with structured metadata. In general, I tend to come down on the side of "structured refs" - although realistically that probably has a lot to do with the fact that I no longer use a dial-up connection and thus rarely pay attention to file size <grin>. -- MarcoTolo 02:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I prefer the cite templates as well, but we have to look out for those poor souls with dial-up access :) When linking to PDFs I always think of SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), a frequent FAC reviewer who always seems to be traveling and away from broadband :P Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herpes simplex virus

I am proposing some merging and dismantling of Herpes simplex virus, and have received no feedback. I thought you might be interested and possibly initiate the discussion. ManVhv 06:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VANDALISM

Stop vandalising my user page. Further vandalism will be reported to the Administrators for you to be dealt with. Making bogus allegations against other memebers is not a valid means of trying to impose your will over what other editors should write. --210835a 08:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly not trying to "impose my will", simply alerting other editors to what I see as an attempt for a banned (General Tojo; see also WP:TOJO) to circumvent the system. As for whether or not you are the same user, I'll let your contribution list speak for itself. -- MarcoTolo 20:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA :)

Thank you, MarcoTolo, for commenting on my RfA, which closed successfully with a tally of 76/0/1! I hope I will meet your expectations, and be sure I will continue trying to be a good editor as well as a good administrator :) If I may be of any assistance to you in the future (or if you see me commit some grievous error :), please drop me a line on my Talk page.

Again, thank you, and happy editing! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand

I viewed the messages connected with the editing of Kent Hovind'd page, and I understand the situation now. It won't be a problem again. I know that a number of other users on this machine and IP make changes to articles from time to time, and I wouldn't want to get them blocked, as they have a lot of good information which is well sourced. Thanks for the heads up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.242.131 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to learn about Wikipedia - I hope you continue to edit productively (we can always use good editors). -- MarcoTolo 02:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genomics spammer

Hi Marco,

So I have begun de-spamming in earnest, and I now realize that I could probably use some help. Would you mind? Maybe if you could start at the top and work down... No pressure, if you don't have time or don't want to get involved 'tis no problem. Thanks a bunch!--DO11.10 23:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing - I'll work from the top down. -- MarcoTolo 01:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank you... I was starting to go a bit cross-eyed. Hopefully this doesn't end up resembling a game of lawn darts with a six year old.--DO11.10 01:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]